Judging Philosophy Jan. 2011 David Trumble 1. Experience. I debated 8 years of policy debate in high school and college. I have coached debate for 32 years at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire - about 5 years of NDT, 12 years of CEDA and 15 years of LD. 2. Rounds. I have judged 35 rounds so far this year, including practice rounds. I usually judge about 60-70 rounds per year by the end of the season. 3. Stylistic preferences. I like organized flow arguments, a reasonable rate of delivery, and quality arguments from a substantive point of view. I prefer case specific arguments that are based in the real world, although it is not a requirement for me. I like arguments that are explained and impacted. Politeness is important. 4. Judging paradigm. In a broad sense, I think like a policy maker. In the particular sense, I just see myself as the judge of a debate round. I vote for the person who won the round that I am watching, not necessarily for the person who advocates a truer position. 5. Topicality as a voting issue. Yes, that is stated in our NFA rules. 6. Does NEG have to prove ground loss to win Topicality? Not necessarily. Ground loss is a factor that can persuade me that the plan is not topical, but it likewise may have little to do with the T decision. T is simply a jurisdictional argument from my perspective. 7. Do I understand the NFA rules & have I read them in the last 6 months? Yes. 8. How strictly do I enforce the NFA rules? I think there are lots of excellent and rewarding forms of college debate, such as CEDA, NDT and Parliamentary. At the same time, I think NFA LD is a unique activity within the field of college debate. Our rules are an essential part of our identity and I do enforce them. 9. Does NEG need to win a DA to win the debate? No. There are multiple avenues for the NEG to win: a complete case take-out involving Inherency, Harm and/or Solvency; a case turn that outweighs the remaining AFF advantage; topicality; procedural arguments such as vagueness, speed violations or language Kritiks; or a counterplan that has a unique net advantage compared to the AFF plan. 10. Dropped arguments? For the most part, a dropped argument is forfeited by the person who drops it. It is up to their opponent to point that out. If they do, then that point generally flows to them. It is still up to that debater to provide an impact to a dropped argument in the overall context of the round. Also, there are some arguments that may be technically considered “dropped,” but more accurately might be considered “responded to” in a broader context. This usually occurs when one debater is trying to bring the debate down to the level of minute substructure and argues their opponent drops a small point, while the truth is sometimes that the substructure has been grouped and answered in a broader sense, without getting down to the level of substructure. This is honestly a judgment call in many rounds. 11. Kritiks/critiques. I think that Kritiks are valid, even though not mentioned in the NFA rules. For me, there are two major categories of Kritiks. First, is process Kritiks. They would be handled similarly to other procedural arguments in that their resolution may precede a full decision on the merits of the plan. Examples of process Kritiks could include language Kritiks, or politeness and other behavioral issues. Second, is substantive Kritiks. Historically, substantive Kritiks have grown out of old-fashioned Value Objections (from the value years of CEDA) or Philosophical Impacts to Disadvantages (from the policy years of NDT and CEDA). As such, they have a time-honored place in our activity. The major problem with Kritiks is that they are often short on uniqueness and links. If the NEG can provide uniqueness and a specific link to the AFF plan, then a Kritik could be a relevant and powerful objection. 12. Other. I have three points to raise here: Inherency, Counterplans and Clash. I think Inherency is an important issue in the construction of an AFF case. If the AFF case does not offer a prima facie proof of Inherency in the 1AC, this could be a voting issue, esp. if the violation is severe and the point is well argued by the NEG. Also, Inherency can be a great tool for the NEG to explore and expose other weaknesses in the AFF case, particularly plan attacks. Understanding why a problem is intractable and identifying its root causes, will in most cases help us understand what type of plan would best solve for the problem; thus setting up strong Solvency arguments, identify superior Counterplan alternatives, and provide solid links or brinks to potential Disadvantages. I would like to see NEG debaters start to push the AFF more and more about their Inherency contentions. I think this would work to the advantage of the NEG debaters and it would ultimately improve the quality of debate rounds. Counterplans can be a great NEG strategy, especially if they are developed with the AFF case specifically in mind. CPs must be not topical, must be competitive, must directly address the problem isolated by the AFF case, and in the end must be a superior option to the AFF plan. For many issues, there is little doubt that the SQ is not a good policy and the real question is which of several policy alternatives is best. A case specific CP can be one of the best and most memorable debates of the year, from my experience. I would readily grant the NEG the reasonable use of FIAT power for their CP. By reasonable, I mean that the actor of the CP must be in a position to undertake the CP mandates. I would apply a similar standard for the use of FIAT for a CP that I would use for the use of FIAT for the AFF plan. Also, the NEG cannot FIAT solvency of the CP, but they can FIAT the adoption and implementation of the CP. Finally, more than anything, I really love a good debate with lots of clash on the issues. I think that when we maximize the real debate about the pros and cons of the specific case presented by the AFF, we balance the educational and gaming aspects of our activity. At some level, coaches are not just arbiters of individual debate rounds, but also stewards of the activity itself. It is much like the role of a farmer. It is not always about maximizing the harvest from any one year, but making sure that there will be continued harvests for years to come. I think that when our activity becomes too imbalanced in favor of the gaming aspects, then we jeopardize our long-term viability. We are all funded by college and universities who I think look at debate programs as both competitive events and educational activities. I don’t use this as an independent voting paradigm when I judge a debate round, but this does influence my overall philosophy about the activity. Lastly, I hope you have fun with debate and help create debate rounds that the competitors, the judges and any audience will enjoy. David Trumble St. Anselm College
David Trumble
1. Experience. I debated 8 years of policy debate in high school and college. I have coached debate for 32 years at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire - about 5 years of NDT, 12 years of CEDA and 15 years of LD.
2. Rounds. I have judged 35 rounds so far this year, including practice rounds. I usually judge about 60-70 rounds per year by the end of the season.
3. Stylistic preferences. I like organized flow arguments, a reasonable rate of delivery, and quality arguments from a substantive point of view. I prefer case specific arguments that are based in the real world, although it is not a requirement for me. I like arguments that are explained and impacted. Politeness is important.
4. Judging paradigm. In a broad sense, I think like a policy maker. In the particular sense, I just see myself as the judge of a debate round. I vote for the person who won the round that I am watching, not necessarily for the person who advocates a truer position.
5. Topicality as a voting issue. Yes, that is stated in our NFA rules.
6. Does NEG have to prove ground loss to win Topicality? Not necessarily. Ground loss is a factor that can persuade me that the plan is not topical, but it likewise may have little to do with the T decision. T is simply a jurisdictional argument from my perspective.
7. Do I understand the NFA rules & have I read them in the last 6 months? Yes.
8. How strictly do I enforce the NFA rules? I think there are lots of excellent and rewarding forms of college debate, such as CEDA, NDT and Parliamentary. At the same time, I think NFA LD is a unique activity within the field of college debate. Our rules are an essential part of our identity and I do enforce them.
9. Does NEG need to win a DA to win the debate? No. There are multiple avenues for the NEG to win: a complete case take-out involving Inherency, Harm and/or Solvency; a case turn that outweighs the remaining AFF advantage; topicality; procedural arguments such as vagueness, speed violations or language Kritiks; or a counterplan that has a unique net advantage compared to the AFF plan.
10. Dropped arguments? For the most part, a dropped argument is forfeited by the person who drops it. It is up to their opponent to point that out. If they do, then that point generally flows to them. It is still up to that debater to provide an impact to a dropped argument in the overall context of the round. Also, there are some arguments that may be technically considered “dropped,” but more accurately might be considered “responded to” in a broader context. This usually occurs when one debater is trying to bring the debate down to the level of minute substructure and argues their opponent drops a small point, while the truth is sometimes that the substructure has been grouped and answered in a broader sense, without getting down to the level of substructure. This is honestly a judgment call in many rounds.
11. Kritiks/critiques. I think that Kritiks are valid, even though not mentioned in the NFA rules. For me, there are two major categories of Kritiks.
First, is process Kritiks. They would be handled similarly to other procedural arguments in that their resolution may precede a full decision on the merits of the plan. Examples of process Kritiks could include language Kritiks, or politeness and other behavioral issues.
Second, is substantive Kritiks. Historically, substantive Kritiks have grown out of old-fashioned Value Objections (from the value years of CEDA) or Philosophical Impacts to Disadvantages (from the policy years of NDT and CEDA). As such, they have a time-honored place in our activity. The major problem with Kritiks is that they are often short on uniqueness and links. If the NEG can provide uniqueness and a specific link to the AFF plan, then a Kritik could be a relevant and powerful objection.
12. Other. I have three points to raise here: Inherency, Counterplans and Clash.
I think Inherency is an important issue in the construction of an AFF case. If the AFF case does not offer a prima facie proof of Inherency in the 1AC, this could be a voting issue, esp. if the violation is severe and the point is well argued by the NEG.
Also, Inherency can be a great tool for the NEG to explore and expose other weaknesses in the AFF case, particularly plan attacks. Understanding why a problem is intractable and identifying its root causes, will in most cases help us understand what type of plan would best solve for the problem; thus setting up strong Solvency arguments, identify superior Counterplan alternatives, and provide solid links or brinks to potential Disadvantages.
I would like to see NEG debaters start to push the AFF more and more about their Inherency contentions. I think this would work to the advantage of the NEG debaters and it would ultimately improve the quality of debate rounds.
Counterplans can be a great NEG strategy, especially if they are developed with the AFF case specifically in mind. CPs must be not topical, must be competitive, must directly address the problem isolated by the AFF case, and in the end must be a superior option to the AFF plan. For many issues, there is little doubt that the SQ is not a good policy and the real question is which of several policy alternatives is best. A case specific CP can be one of the best and most memorable debates of the year, from my experience. I would readily grant the NEG the reasonable use of FIAT power for their CP. By reasonable, I mean that the actor of the CP must be in a position to undertake the CP mandates. I would apply a similar standard for the use of FIAT for a CP that I would use for the use of FIAT for the AFF plan. Also, the NEG cannot FIAT solvency of the CP, but they can FIAT the adoption and implementation of the CP.
Finally, more than anything, I really love a good debate with lots of clash on the issues. I think that when we maximize the real debate about the pros and cons of the specific case presented by the AFF, we balance the educational and gaming aspects of our activity. At some level, coaches are not just arbiters of individual debate rounds, but also stewards of the activity itself. It is much like the role of a farmer. It is not always about maximizing the harvest from any one year, but making sure that there will be continued harvests for years to come. I think that when our activity becomes too imbalanced in favor of the gaming aspects, then we jeopardize our long-term viability. We are all funded by college and universities who I think look at debate programs as both competitive events and educational activities. I don’t use this as an independent voting paradigm when I judge a debate round, but this does influence my overall philosophy about the activity.
Lastly, I hope you have fun with debate and help create debate rounds that the competitors, the judges and any audience will enjoy.
David Trumble
St. Anselm College